Even though the state of Virginia admits that the ques­tion of Daryl Atkins’ men­tal retar­da­tion is a ​“close case,” it is still pur­su­ing a lengthy jury tri­al to ensure his exe­cu­tion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 that those with men­tal retar­da­tion must be exclud­ed from the death penal­ty, but they issued no opin­ion with regard to Mr. Atkins’ men­tal sta­tus. As the tri­al in Virginia began this week, Atkins’ moth­er and for­mer teach­ers tes­ti­fied about his long-term strug­gles in deal­ing with his dis­abil­i­ty, not­ing that he did not fin­ish high school, could not get a dri­ver’s license, and was cut from the foot­ball team because he could not grasp the rules. 

Atkins scored 59 on an IQ test in 1998, but record­ed scores of 67 and 74 on more recent tests. Psychologist Evan Nelson, who admin­is­tered the tests, believes that one expla­na­tion for the high­er scores may be how many times Atkins has tak­en the exam, how long the test has been around, and the eight years Atkins has spent in jail. Nelson stat­ed, ​“Oddly enough, because of his con­stant con­tact with the many lawyers that worked on his case… Mr. Atkins received more intel­lec­tu­al stim­u­la­tion in prison that he did dur­ing his late ado­les­cence and ear­ly adult­hood.”

The tri­al is expect­ed to include tes­ti­mo­ny from near­ly 100 wit­ness­es, includ­ing teach­ers, rel­a­tives, acquain­tances, and crime vic­tims. Possibly inter­fer­ing with a sim­ple objec­tive deter­mi­na­tion of Atkins’ men­tal abil­i­ty, the jury has been informed that this was a death penal­ty case. Knowledge of the crime could influ­ence their will­ing­ness to grant him a less­er pun­ish­ment through a find­ing of men­tal retar­da­tion. A ver­dict is expect­ed in August. (DPIC analy­sis, New York Times, July 27, 2005, and Washington Post, July 23, 2005). See Mental Retardation.
Update: On August 5, Daryl Atkins was found to be not men­tal­ly retard­ed by a jury in Yorktown, Virginia. The state set an exe­cu­tion date of December 2, though his attor­neys vowed to appeal the rul­ing. (Wash. Post, Aug. 6, 2005).

Citation Guide